Archives for category: A-kraft

Red klimaet !
Vi kan (måske) gøre en virkelig indsats

Ikke med at spise mindre kød.
Nej, noget realistisk.
Noget, der måske kan redde klimaet!
Klik her og hjælp med at bringe dette forslag frem til realiteter.
Det er alvorligt ment !
Hilsner fra Thorkil Søe

Baggrund

I en grundig norsk E-bog Radon, Lungekræft og LNT-modellen finder man mange interessante vurderinger om stråling og helse.
Nedenstående er uddrag fra dette.
________________________________________________________________________
Like etter Tsjernobylulykken bestemte helsemyndighetene at den øvre grense for radioaktivitet i matvarer skulle være 600 Bq/kg
Senere fikk reinkjøtt en grense på 6000 Bq/kg.

En god del kjøtt av sau, og særlig rein, har inneholdt betydelig mer enn dette.
Er det farlig å spise slikt kjøtt?
En middag med kjøtt som inneholder 10 000 Bq/kg gir en ekstra stråledose som tilsvarer en flyreise til Syden.
Dosen er fordelt over et helt år. Vi kan spise et par hundre slike middager i året før stråledosen blir like stor som den dose vi får (i gjennomsnitt) fra naturlig stråling!
Vi mener at det er uheldig å fiksere en bestemt grenseverdi gitt i Bq/kg. Derimot bør vi satse på å gi informasjon om stråledoser ved inntak av kunstige radioaktive isotoper.


Fra en anden (også norsk) kilde
citeres følgende:
Lave doser av stråling ser ikke ut til å være farlig, og det fins ganske mye forskning som peker mot at lave stråledoser til og med kan være bra for oss (Google “hormese” eller “hormesis”).
Å “regne seg frem til” at det blir 500 ekstra kreftdødsfall i Norge på grunn av Tsjernobyl, er 100 % useriøst og uetisk.

mSv (milliSivert) er et mål for den biologiske virkning af radiation.

  • Baggrundsstrålingen, som vi alle udsættes for, er normalt 2 mSv/år
  • Enkelte steder over 10 gange så meget.
  • 500 mSv som engangspåvirkning vil give svage symptomer på strålesyge, men er ikke livstruende.
  • 2000 mSv som engangspåvirkning vil ofte være dødelig.
  • Selv ved væsentligt mere vil der være en periode på op til flere måneder (næsten) uden symptomer. (Walking Ghosts) eller vandrende spøgelser.
    Den endelige dødsproces kan være lang og meget pinefuld.
  • Overlevende vil ikke have varige skader.
    Dog bortset fra få måneders kortere forventet livslængde.
  • Næsten i en fodnote angiver Videnskab.dk at 1000 mSv/år
    jævnt fordelt vil give organismen mulighed for at reparere skader løbende og således ikke er skadeligt.
  • Efter katastrofen ved Fukushima blev befolkningen tvangsevakueret fra områder hvor strålingen var over 20 mSv/år.
    Dette var kun 2 % af det der har vist sig ikke at være skadeligt.
    Til gengæld kunne man konstatere et stort antal dødsfald som følge af evakueringerne.
    Alt for sent blev dette taget op i forbindelse med beregningsmetoden J-value eller Justification Value.
  • Der er aldrig konstateret genetisk betingede skader på efterfølgende generationer.

Enheden Sivert og tilsvarende, er et mål for biologisk påvirkning.
Det skal ikke sammenblandes med den anden enhed Bq eller Becquerel, der angiver antal af radioaktive henfald pr sekund.
Der er ingen (tilgængelige) oplysninger om sammenhæng.

Sivert er en meget stor enhed og man taler normalt om milliSivert.
Til gengæld er enheden Becquerel en meget lille enhed og fra naturens hånd er vi alle udsat for over 2000 Bq eller 2000 radioaktive henfald pr sekund.
_________________________________________________________________

Fra en lang og grundig norsk e-bog
Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model
(52 sider) refereres:
Meget mere: Se http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/tjenester/kunnskap/straling.
– – LNT eller “Liniar No Treashold” angiver at
– – “Lige hvor lidt så er stråling altid skadeligt”
___________________________________________________________________
1. Radon in homes: It is evident from this long paper that we can forget about most of the remedial actions for reducing the average radon level. This would save a lot of money for those involved.
2. Nuclear power: In the fight for reducing the CO2 release to the atmosphere, nuclear power could be a considerable contributor to the worlds energy supply. The world energy consumption increases annually by approximately 2 %. Also the use of fossil fuel with CO2 release increases. A significant contribution to halt and even reduce the CO2 release would be to increase the contribution from nuclear energy. It is a surprise to us that environmental organizations that worry about global warming – are not pro nuclear.
3. Reactor accidents We have had two major breakdowns of nuclear reactors which both have been treated according to the LNT-theory. For both Chernobyl and Fukushima consequences have been calculated using collective doses and LNT. In Chernobyl a number of people were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome and 28 died within 3 months. There has also been recorded thyroid cancer to children that was drinking contaminated milk (I-131). Altogether 11 deaths have been recorded. Whether these cancers have been caused by the Chernobyl accident is rather douptful since similar changes in the thyroid have been observed without radiation. Furthermore, the thyroid doses from I-131 after the Chernobyl accident have not been measured and they are very poorly determined. Cancer deaths in combination with the reactor accidents are based on LNT. No threshold and no hormetic region has been considered. However, the most significant and serious decision taken after the reactor accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima was to evacuate several hundred thousands of people. The decision was taken based on the LNT-theory and the use of collective doses. No attempts were made to compare the radiation level in the contaminated areas with the level found in the HBR (High Background Radiation) regions. If such a comparison had been made, the most negative of the reactor accidents could have been avoided.

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
– – – – Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

__________________________________________________________________
z-energy storage.png
Klik på tabellen for at få fuld størrelse.

Naturligvis både forskes og tales om Syntetisk Gas
Det er muligt.
Så længe man ikke taler om prisen er det en strålende ide.
http://news.mit.edu/2017/turning-emissions-into-fuel-1128

OG

Hvis gas købes i Rusland er det meget billigere.
Sådan kun 20 %

I forbindelse med en grundig vurdering af Intermittent Grid Storage fås at (syntetisk?) methane round trip:
Electric energy to gas and back to electric energy.
Efficiency would be ~31%

Der Spiegel giver 2019 følgende oplysninger:
Effektiviteten bliver under 40 % ved “Vind -> El. -> Hydro -> Metan.”
Derudover kommer et lidt større tab ved metan til El.

I alt skal man ikke regne med over 25 % effektivitet ved denne form for energilagring.
Dertil kommer forrentning og vedligehold af dyre anlæg.

__________________________________________________________________________
Hej Thorkil

Sig du det til de pårørende…:

1. nov 2010, Radon slår kun rygerne ihjel:
Citat: “…
65.000 danske huse har højere koncentrationer, end de [Det er yderst lav radioaktivitetskoncentration men det er skadeligt! ->] 200 Bq pr. kubikmeter, der tidligere var verdenssundhedsorganisationen WHO’s grænse. Sidste år blev den sænket til 100 Bq/m3 som cirka 280.000 danske huse overskrider.

Torben Sigsgaard fremhæver konklusionerne om radon og rygning, der forstærker hinandens skadelige virkning, efter flere avisartikler har fået folketingsmedlemmer fra både højre- og venstrefløjen til at kræve en handlingsplan.
…”

Kommer visse radioaktive stoffer (selv i lave koncentrationer) først ind i kroppen er det for sent – det skader, minsker livskvaliteten drastisk i fx årtier – eller dræber:

August 6, 2012, Fukushima’s Children Facing High Rate of Thyroid Irregularities:
Citat: “…
According to government research released in Japan, 36 percent of children from Fukushima Prefecture — the area around the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant meltdown — who were exposed to radiation now have abnormal growths on their thyroid glands.

The survey examined more than 38,000 local children, and found that more than 13,000 had thyroid cysts or nodules, a rate that is much higher than the average population, where an estimated 0.5-1.0% of children have thyroid cysts. According to Japanese authorities, while they don’t know that the radiation exposure is the cause, they will be monitoring the effects on the area’s children in upcoming years.

The Japanese authorities’ downplaying of the risks to children is controversial, and is being covered by the English-language Fukushima Voice website, the Fukushima Voice site.
…”

July 20, 2012, Fukushima Watch: Study Suggests up to 1,300 Could Die From Radiation Effects:
Citat: “…
The radiation toll from last year’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident could eventually result in anywhere from 15 to 1,300 deaths, according to a study by Stanford University scientists.
[ http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobso… ]
The researchers also calculate that about 24 to 2,500 cases of cancer illnesses could someday be attributed to the accident. Plant workers who were exposed to radiation on-site may account for another two to 12 cancer cases.

About 27% of the health effects expected in Japan will occur sometime in the next 50 years, the study said.

they mapped out the spread and concentration of the radioactive nuclides — iodine-131, cesium-137 and cesium-134.
…”

July 16, 2012, Fukushima: West Coast cesium slam ahead, hair falling out, Tepco data flaw:
Citat: “…
As hair falls out of a Fukushima victim’s head, a new German study reports that North America’s West Coast will be the area most contaminated by Fukushima cesium of all regions in Pacific in 10 years, an “order-of-magnitude higher” than waters off Japan, according to a new German study followed by a former New York Times journalist going inside the no-entry zone and reporting radiation levels over 10 times higher than Tepco’s data.

“I didn’t know still some people remained in the town. “One of them told me, ‘My hair fell off,’ with tears in her eyes.

Hair falling out is one of the most common of the eight signs of radiation poisoning.
…”

August 09, 2012, Lead shields masked radiation readings up to 30%:
Citat: “…
Lead radiation shields forced on workers at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to cover their dosimeters masked radiation readings by about 30 percent.
…”

Jul. 25, 2012, Exec admits falsifying N-data / Lead-shielded dosimeters carried by workers in high-radiation areas:
Citat: “…
“I came up with the idea to use covers because the dosimeters’ alarm repeatedly sounded” when he first entered the site, said Teruo Sagara, a director at the subcontractor, Build-up, during a press conference Monday at its office in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture.
…”

Erfaringer fra Chernobyl. Bl.a. virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet radioaktivt nedfald fra Chernobyl:

Linköping University (2007, May 30). Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher.
The increase in Tondel’s studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science.
The conclusion is that there is scientific support for a connection between the radioactive fallout and the increase in the number of cancer cases.
…”

Federation Of European Cancer Societies (2001, October 26). Cutting The Cost Of Fall-Out From Chernobyl 15 Years After The World’s Worst Nuclear Accident. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
Nearly 2000 cases of thyroid cancer have been linked to the world’s worst nuclear accident which occurred in Ukrainian city 15 years ago – and the number is still rising.
Professor Dillwyn Williams, of The Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge University, told the meeting: “Four years after the accident, an excess of thyroid cancers was noted among children who had been exposed to fall-out from the disaster. That increase has continued and new cases are still being seen in those who were children at the time of the accident”.
…”

JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, April 24). Radiation Exposure Associated With More Aggressive Thyroid Cancer, Worse Outcomes. ScienceDaily:
Citat: “…
[ Lang “latenstid”: ]
The average age at first exposure to radiation was 19.4 years, and cancers were diagnosed an average of 28.7 years later.
…”

Følgende er virkningen i Sverige, som fik fortyndet Chernobyl radioaktivt nedfald:

Aug. 17, 2007 Chernobyl fallout hurt Swedish infants:
Citat: “…
The report by researchers from Stockholm University and New York’s Columbia University found that children born in the eight municipalities experiencing the highest levels of radiation were 3.6 percent less likely than others to qualify for high school, The Local said Thursday.

The researchers said it appears prenatal exposure to radiation levels previously considered safe was actually damaging to cognitive ability.
…”

Man kan også være turist i dele af Tjernobylområdet – men det er strengt forbudt at grave i jorden. Den slags forbud har Fukushima også:

In Chernobyl town. All pipes must run above ground – no digging is allowed.

7 July 2012, Chernobyl’s radioactive trees and the forest fire risk.
Much of the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant is pine forest, and some of it so badly contaminated that a forest fire could create a devastating radioactive smoke cloud.
Citat: “…
Having said this, the berries are not uniformly harmful. In an average pint of them, perhaps only a quarter will be contaminated. The main thing is to make sure you do not put them on your cereal every day.

Pine damages easily. Wind blows it down. Insects infest it. Drought makes brush into perfect tinder which can all too easily catch fire. And these dying radioactive plantations are considered too dangerous and expensive to clear.

If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent.

Their equipment is very basic. They believe they know when they are fighting a radioactive fire – they experience a tingling, metallic sensation in their skin – but they do not fully understand the serious dangers of being exposed to superheated radioactive particles.

Sergiy says more big wildfires in Chernobyl like the one in 1992 would be catastrophic for Ukraine’s image, and potentially devastating for farmland right across Europe.
…”

Chernobyl: A tourist guide to the death zone.
45000 people used to live here before the catastrophe. They were evacuated in less than 2 hours. Now this is a ghost town:
Citat: “…
When the ground is more severely contaminated a bulldozer removes up to 80 cm of soil, which is buried as well to “get rid” of the Caesium 137. Even though the sun has been shining for days, all the streets in the contaminated area are wet. Tank trucks are driving around spraying water non-stop to keep the radioactive dust on the ground so it won’t reach the lungs where it would probably cause cancer.

On our trip we pass by empty villages. Furniture can be spotted through the windows. The people who used to live here had to leave everything behind. Everything is contaminated!

The levels of radioactive radiation vary immensely in this maze of tunnels. There are tunnels you can stroll through – with protective clothing on – while there are others you have to sprint through. Suddenly there is a board that blocks the way down a staircase. It says, “Stop! 200 X-ray an hour!” Not even the workers are allowed to go there.
…”

07.17.2012, Chernobyl Now. Are nuclear disasters the new normal?:
Citat: “…
Although Chernobyl contaminated half the planet with fallout, memory of the disaster had almost faded into obscurity when a tsunami swamped Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant last year. At the time, many observers resurrected the specter of Chernobyl as a reassuring example of what wasn’t happening at Fukushima—a nuclear meltdown. We know now, though, that three of Fukushima’s reactors did melt down, spewing radioactive contamination over parts of Japan and into the sea.

In fact, the global rate is about five times the baseline goal of U.S. regulators. If the rate of partial core melts holds true for the 353 light-water reactors currently operating, we can expect a nuclear meltdown to occur every six years on average.
…”

Link virker ikke mere:

20 years after Chernobyl – The ongoing health effects -:
Citat: “…
Here you can see a picture from the Otto-Hug thyroid clinic in Gomel. Until 2002, 70.000 patients received extensive thyroid treatment at this clinic alone. For many children and adolescents, this means the removal of their thyroid glands and the lifelong dependence on medication and medical supervision.

Thyroid cancer can in fact be treated in most cases, but only under Western medical standards, which cannot be taken for granted in the region. In many cases, the only hope lies with private donations from the West. Nobody cares for the mental effects of cancer on the affected children.

Thyroid cancer is a very rare form of cancer – under normal circumstances it constitutes less than one percent of all cancer forms. That’s also why this increase is so remarkable.

The cancer rates increase with the rate of contamination in the soil: In the most heavily affected region of Belarus, in Gomel, the rate rose up to 55.9 percent. One can also observe a doubling of the rate of breast cancer in regions with notably high Cesium contamination. On average, women developed breast cancer 15 years earlier than usual – a similar phenomenon as with thyroid cancer.

The risk of leukemia in children in the affected regions is also three times higher than usual.

But the health consequences are not restricted to the Chernobyl region. Surveys in several European countries showed a significant increase in infant mortality in the year 1987 – probably as a result of a “Cesium-effect” – and in the beginning of the 1990s probably as a result of a “Strontium-effect”. It would take too much time to go into detail on these effects at this point. For the record, studies come to the conclusion that fatalities under infants in Europe related to Chernobyl are in the magnitude of 5,000. Because of different reasons, the actual effects could be much higher.

Numerous studies also document a significant increase in malformations in many European countries. According to a German survey, 1,000 to 3,000 additional cases of malformation were registered in the contaminated region of Bavaria alone. IPPNW scientists estimate a Europe-wide number of malformations of at least 10,000.

Children are also strongly affected. In 1996 in Ukraine, 70 percent of the children of afflicted parents were officially registered as sick. In comparison: in 1987, the figure was 20 percent. Children in the region of Gomel in Belarus are also very sick. From 100,000 children, 83,000 suffer from respiratory diseases, 7,000 from diseases of the nervous system and sensory organs, 7,000 from skin diseases and subcutaneous adipose tissue diseases, and 5.500 from diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. In total, the number of infant illnesses diagnosed for the first time rose by a factor of thirteen.

These are the results:

Until today, several hundred thousand liquidators have become sick.

Several ten thousand liquidators have died as a result of radiation exposure.

In total, there must be far more than of 10,000 cases.

In the future, more than 50,000 children will suffer from thyroid cancer.

These are very conservative estimates. The Russian Environmental Ministry states that the number of Chernobyl-induced cases of diseases amounted to 1,3 million persons before the beginning of the 1990s.
Until today, 10,000 cases of thyroid cancer have occurred in Belarus alone.

Does this also pertain to infants? The neurosurgeons Orlov and Shaversky from Kiev report a series of 188 brain tumors in children under the age of three. This represents an increase by a factor of 5.8 since Chernobyl and can certainly not be attributed to bad lifestyle or poor nutrition. Children which were breast fed were affected in particular. This study was ignored by the IAEA and WHO.

Just as they did with other, more up to date and unquestionable pieces of research. The IAEA/WHO study relies almost exclusively on studies from 1990 to 1998. Newer, more alarming studies were completely disregarded.

But there is further criticism of the IAEA/WHO study:

Several hundred thousand people were simply overlooked: Merely 200,000 of the 600,000 to 860,000 of the liquidators were considered in the surveys.

In the study, non-cancer afflictions were left out of the computation base for the fatality figures.

Of the 9,000 cases of cancer deaths forecast in the study, the IAEA only mentioned 4,000 in its abridged report. This means that 5,000 fatalities were simply left out of the report presented to the press and the public.

This lecture actively resists being taken in by these arguments. The Chernobyl case can not and must not be closed. Chernobyl began to kill 20 years ago – and has been killing ever since – slowly and unobtrusively. It’s an accident without an end. Nobody knows exactly what burdens will befall the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victims. A technology which has such consequences is irresponsible. Taking into account a study of the German Society for Reactor Security, the risk of a nuclear meltdown in the EU in the next 40 years lies at 16 percent.
…”

Rapport:
April 2011, Health Effects of Chernobyl 25 years after the reactor catastrophe:
Executive Summary
Citat: “…
This paper evaluates studies that contain plausible indications of health damage caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The authors of this paper attach importance to the selection of methodically accurate and comprehensible analyses. Due to the already mentioned methodical difficulties, it is not our aim to present the “right” statistics in contrast to the obviously wrong ones given by the IAEA, since these can never be found. They can only supply us with indications as to the diversity and extent of the health effects we should be dealing with when we talk about the health effects of Chernobyl.

Disease/health damage is to be expected as a result of additional exposure to radiation because of Chernobyl

.a. Cancer. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the latency period for many types of cancer is 25 – 30 years. At present we are only just seeing cases of thyroid cancers, breast cancers and brain tumours In the population. But liquidators have also developed cancer in numerous other organs: the prostate gland, stomach, cancer of the blood, thyroid cancer

.b. Genetic changes: malformations, stillbirths, the lack of children

.c. Non-cancerous diseases. Many organ systems could be affected; brain disorders; accelerated aging process; psychological disorders

Despite this, the ICRP continues to give a dose limit of 100 mSv for teratogenic damage. This claim has been invalidated by numerous studies.

The lower the radiation level, the longer the latency period before the outbreak of cancer (established as early as 2000 by Pierce and Preston in the context of the RERF studies).

It was found that the incidence of non-cancerous disease had increased; mainly cardiovascular and stomach diseases, and cases of neurological-psychiatric illness were found to be a somatic effect of low-level radiation. The latter was observed mainly during research on liquidators and their children.

The following is nothing but a slightly improved version of a Google translation of the original Danish site.
Click on yellow text to follow links.
_______________________________________________________________________________

The Ultimate Goal:
100% Wind Power in Europe


zo
On the web page windeurope.org, that is sparkling with enthusiasm for wind power, one finds an overview of the European wind.

The happy reader finds data for the first half of 2017:
Offshore wind capacity 14.0 GW
Onshore wind capacity 145.5 GW
Maximum yield from wind February 22: 75 GW

Upon closer inspection, this data gives rise to interesting considerations.

It is easy to calculate the Capacity Factor for the “Record Date” Feb. 22nd.
– – – 47% that’s just not impressive.
.
Of course, you can not keep the S-train running using power that was produced last month.
Therefore:
Click on the chart.
Here you can see that on the “Minimum Days” the yield was 20 GW
– – – It gives a capacity factor of 12.5%
.
Then it’s tempting to consider “The Ultimate Green Goal” where you assume power and heat exclusively from sun and wind.

– – – Of course:
– – – Without the help of polluting power sources like coal and gas.
– – – And of course without the hated Nuclear power.

Thus, in order to maintain power on the net 24-7-365, there must be available wind capacity of at least 8 times the consumption.
Of course, these many wind turbines will stand still or idle for most of the time.
In addition: An almost unimaginable amount of high-voltage power lines will be needed to reconcile supply and demand across the European continent.

Specifically, it means that if the wind power lobby boast of that
“Now it costs only 100 € / kW (capacity)”
Yes, then the consumer must pay well over 700 € / kW extra for the necessary overcapacity.
And at least the same for the necessary high voltage net across the European continent.
These long wires will have a (significant?) energy loss.
This will require even more wind turbines.

BUT

That was what happens on “those bad days”
On “the good days” you will have an unimaginable amount of useless energy.
Or have to stop almost all wind turbines.

An Illustrative Review


y-power.png
Click the chart to get full size.
On these pictures you can see more than the usual dream.
The gray areas indicate supply with basic load and different types of
back-up.

I come with the following (small) objections.
– There will always be some (little) available hydropower.
– At European level there will always be some (little) available wind power.

But if “you’re going the plank out” and assume that all energy should be “green”.
It is easy to imagine the situation:
A lot of unused energy or unused capacity.
In my opinion it should have been shown on a fifth picture.

Of course there is something else

Of course there are other power sources.
In fact, most will only be marginal.
But no matter what; it is impossible to assume that, for example, the
“wind gods” will promise to be active at night – always.

Sun

If solar power (PV) is included in the calculations, the situation will at first get more muddy.
But ultimately only worsened.

Batteries

To avoid misunderstandings, I mention that, even using the most optimistic projections, it will be impossible to pay for batteries to store energy for more than a few hours of the “low time” – Which can easily be more than a week.

Heating

If heat can be stored in sufficient quantities and at a reasonable price,
You will get a good help?

Hydropower

will, even with the help of Norway, only be a drip in the European ocean.

Bioenergy

has evolved into being the rabbit, pulled out of the hat, when you want to overcome the reality.
At European level, it will hardly be more than a drip in the ocean.
A very expensive drip.

Nuclear Power

is sometimes suggested as backup.
Based on an economic assessment, it is unrealistic.
Due to the risk of Xenon Poisoning and an accident like Chernobyl, it will be irresponsible.

Why?

If you want to know why our dream of stable and pollution-free energy, it burst.
So take time to read another page.

Especially for Denmark

Denmark is a little country with good neighbors.
When we buy backups from Norway and Sweden, we pay ONLY twice as much as we get when we export bulkheads.

In this way, Denmark will be, not just the first country to invest in wind power.
But we will probably be the last country to understand that it was an expensive mistake.

Meanwhile, Denmark becomes a backward country with very little electrification.

kWh per person

Now consider the realities

If you, my unknown reader, have come so far, I ask you to take a little break and consider the consequences.

If you would like more, please continue to here .
Or you may see some of my sources.

Why did we jump on this
Limed Twig?

After the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island , we went into panic, mostly in the United States.
Until today, we live with the consequences.

Also in England

25 January 2018 World Nuclear quotes The Policy Exchange.
“Decarbonising our existing electricity system with 100% renewable energy might be possible, but unnecessarily expensive and perhaps unsustainable.”
The topic is discussed but the conclusion is hardly changed.

If you, my unknown reader, have FACTUAL objections, write to me
thorkilsoee@gmail.com
Otherwise, I say goodbye and have a good time of thought.
Thorkil Søe